patcam7122

patcam7122

Joined on Jul 15, 2011

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Did I strike a nerve, Simon? If you look at other comments here you'll see I'm certainly not alone in finding this article was a waste of space.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 07:00 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies

My God, is DPReview so desperate for material to fill space that it searches the globe for dull, boring nonsense like this? Instead of displaying mediocrity like this why not spend more time and space on something actually useful to the majority of viewers on this site?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 22:21 UTC as 33rd comment | 8 replies

Ho hum, quick... raise your hand all those inspired to rush out and " start taking care of our environment".

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 06:33 UTC as 2nd comment
On Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G review preview (414 comments in total)
In reply to:

12345ccr: this lens should not have gotten 84%. The rating is absolutely ridiculous. In the sharpness test, the 50mm F/1.4 is sharper at most, if not all F stops. Plus, it's between 3-4 X as expensive as well. The most i would give is a 60%. As a Canon shooter myself, i can get a faster and better lens for less money and im sure Nikon users can as well.

You must really be smoking something good, "Joe", if you think these photos are any better than can be produced by a run-of-the-mill 50mm/1.4G.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 31, 2013 at 08:47 UTC
On Nikon Df Review preview (1618 comments in total)
In reply to:

DC Akowua: 'is this a half-price D4 or a D610 with a 50% markup?' The reviewer ask....
This camera is clearly a D610 with a 50% mark up. I don't know why some people refer to it as a mini D4....nonsense
The D700 was a mini D3 because the D700 shared more than just the sensor.
The Df look nice though...especially the black one.

Isn't it funny that camera praised for it's ability at high ISO's in low light is not for "Users of autofocus wishing to work in low light. "?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 07:46 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

patcam7122: sadly I see nothing here that my Sony NEX-5N can't equal or better at 1/6th the price. IQ, high ISO, etc. Surely all that money should get you more than a few frills. I'm guessing that photographers who actually use their cameras to derive income and not purchase them as status symbols will likely stay with the previous model. Just 1 man's humble opinion, of course. Hopefully that's still allowed :) ?

well armandino, that is only your ill-considered opinion. Any camera can be used in a professional setting, it's the person behind it that counts. Perhaps you're someone who spent all that money and needs to justify the purchase of his "professional" tool. And where do you get off telling me where and what comments I may post? Appears to me the only "tool" in this case might be you behind the camera. Oh, and by the way, I earn money with a Canon 7D and a Nikon D200, as well as my NEX, so I stick by my comments.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2012 at 17:07 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)

sadly I see nothing here that my Sony NEX-5N can't equal or better at 1/6th the price. IQ, high ISO, etc. Surely all that money should get you more than a few frills. I'm guessing that photographers who actually use their cameras to derive income and not purchase them as status symbols will likely stay with the previous model. Just 1 man's humble opinion, of course. Hopefully that's still allowed :) ?

Direct link | Posted on May 26, 2012 at 05:40 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies

If you can't tell the difference between photos from a Nikon D300S and a Panasonic point and shoot either there is something wrong with your vision or every other photographer on the planet has been doing it wrong all this time.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2012 at 07:25 UTC as 43rd comment

sorry but I personally don't see any merit in this photo. It is boring, snapshot-like and I wouldn't have it on my hard drive never mind publish it on the Internet for all to see. I was under the impression the D700 did well at high ISO but viewing your photo at the largest size available reveals an enormous amount of noise. Are you sure you used noise reduction on this photo? To those who like this photo, more power to you; we're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how wrong they might be :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2011 at 21:45 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

dunkreid: Ladies and Gents from Olympus

Pretty please give us a C3040,4040,5050 form factor for M43. Ditch the rangefinder notion.

Thank you.

you must be joking. I own a C5050 and while the photo quality is outstanding the operation of controls, focusing, etc. is glacial at best.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2011 at 00:47 UTC
On GalleryItem:1417406 (1 comment in total)

amazing that you had a 5N January 3, 2011. wasn't aware they had been in production then.

Posted on Sep 24, 2011 at 06:06 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

patcam7122: photos seem decent but apart from the 24mm vs 35mm factor the 35 1.8 Nikon mounted on my D40 can produce shots at least as good and only cost $200 Can. Too many people instantly assume a $1000 lens must be better than a lesser-priced one, they believe the advertising hype without questioning for themselves. Collect several lenses of similar specification, shoot various photos and 99% of the time any differences will be attributable to photographic skills [or lack of]. There are very few "bad" lenses produced by reputable manufacturers these days, the size of your bank account is not the determining factor in how good your photos look, you are.

by the way 3dreal, what is an "analogue cam"?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2011 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

patcam7122: photos seem decent but apart from the 24mm vs 35mm factor the 35 1.8 Nikon mounted on my D40 can produce shots at least as good and only cost $200 Can. Too many people instantly assume a $1000 lens must be better than a lesser-priced one, they believe the advertising hype without questioning for themselves. Collect several lenses of similar specification, shoot various photos and 99% of the time any differences will be attributable to photographic skills [or lack of]. There are very few "bad" lenses produced by reputable manufacturers these days, the size of your bank account is not the determining factor in how good your photos look, you are.

still much better IQ from photos taken with my D7000 and 24 F2, I was just using the D40 as an example. I don't understand why people seem to want to defend a giant conglomerate offering dubious quality and performance in lenses that command an exorbitant price.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2011 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

patcam7122: photos seem decent but apart from the 24mm vs 35mm factor the 35 1.8 Nikon mounted on my D40 can produce shots at least as good and only cost $200 Can. Too many people instantly assume a $1000 lens must be better than a lesser-priced one, they believe the advertising hype without questioning for themselves. Collect several lenses of similar specification, shoot various photos and 99% of the time any differences will be attributable to photographic skills [or lack of]. There are very few "bad" lenses produced by reputable manufacturers these days, the size of your bank account is not the determining factor in how good your photos look, you are.

OK, my Nikon 24mm F2 still does better at a fraction of the cost

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2011 at 17:40 UTC

photos seem decent but apart from the 24mm vs 35mm factor the 35 1.8 Nikon mounted on my D40 can produce shots at least as good and only cost $200 Can. Too many people instantly assume a $1000 lens must be better than a lesser-priced one, they believe the advertising hype without questioning for themselves. Collect several lenses of similar specification, shoot various photos and 99% of the time any differences will be attributable to photographic skills [or lack of]. There are very few "bad" lenses produced by reputable manufacturers these days, the size of your bank account is not the determining factor in how good your photos look, you are.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2011 at 16:17 UTC as 37th comment | 7 replies
On Updated: Panasonic DMC-FZ150 studio samples re-shot article (50 comments in total)

dpreview, I'm interested as how you see this new firmware as an "improvement". What little detail there was originally has been smeared over with excessive noise reduction. I find it hard to believe Panasonic would feel viewing these photos would be an inducement to potential customers to buy this camera.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2011 at 07:41 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

patcam7122: the ISO 1600 samples are full of noise and the few details evident are smeared. There hasn't been a Panasonic yet that can produce a decent photo at anything above base ISO without extensive noise reduction and other Photoshop work. No progress seems to have been made on this front for years.

well, pixel colorado, it's hardly too much to ask to have decent photo quality for the price asked for this camera, whether it be a DSLR or P&S. I'm sure the folks at Panasonic hope everyone contemplating a purchase of this camera have the same attitude you do.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2011 at 02:00 UTC

the ISO 1600 samples are full of noise and the few details evident are smeared. There hasn't been a Panasonic yet that can produce a decent photo at anything above base ISO without extensive noise reduction and other Photoshop work. No progress seems to have been made on this front for years.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2011 at 22:06 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

patcam7122: How can anyone possibly assess the capabilities of this camera if all you let us see are ISO 100 samples?

That's a pretty feeble reply. Why even bother posting photos that tell us nothing about the camera? Were you so eager to be "first on the block" with news of the P7100 that it didn't matter you had no real concrete information to pass on besides a company press release? Telling us to look up sample galleries of a previous model only reiterates the fact you have nothing useful to report.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2011 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Ku: hello? ISO100?

What are you trying to say, Jim?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2011 at 07:14 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »